The Phrygian Vanak-, the Priest-King, the 'Wanax To
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Списание ЕПОХИ Издание на Историческия факултет на ВТУ „Св. св. Кирил и Методий“ Том / Volume XXVIII (2020). Книжка / Issue 2 Journal EPOHI [EPOCHS] Edition of the Department of History of “St. Cyril and St. Methodius” University of Veliko Tаrnovo THE “DECLINE” OF BRONZE AGE WANAX: THE PHRYGIAN VANAK-, THE PRIEST-KING, THE ‘WANAX TO BASILEUS MODEL’ AND THE POWER RELATIONS IN PHRYGIAN SOCIETY Stefan YORDANOV Abstract: The article discusses the nature of the Phrygian ruler’s institution in order to elucidate its place in the potestary-political system of the Phrygian society. On the basis of the assumption that the inscription on the Midas Monument’s rock-cut façade was consecrated not to the king Midas, but to the goddess Mida, an attempt has been made to stress the necessity of further analysis of the questions concerning the meaning of the titles lavagt-, vanak- and others, the origins of the supreme titles in Phrygian titulature, the presence of the priest-king in the Phrygian potestary-political system, the validity of the so-called ‘Wanax to Basileus Model’ in view of the Phrygian example, etc. Keywords: Phrygian ruler’s institution, priest-king, wanax/vanagt-, lavagetas/lavagt-, akenanogavos, King Midas, goddess Mida. 1. For ancient Anatolia, the first half of the 1st millennium BC was marked by new socio-politi- cal realities, with the Phrygian State taking an important place among them. 1.1. The main potestarian Old Phrygian (7th century BC) institutions, recorded in the Phrygian inscriptions evidence1, are as follows: vanak (anax/wanax, ruler), lavagetas (lawagetas, military lea der), proitavos (leader, head), arkiaevais (governor, leader), memevais (councillor) and akena- nogavos (keeper of the monuments). Among these titles, vanak and lavagetas usually are frequently presented as Greek borrowings. A borrowing, but in this case an Anatolian borrowing, notwithstanding its Greek parallel – the title koiranos, is the title kuryaneyon2. 1.2. The Old Phrygian title proitawos is cognate to the Etruscan purth (purthne), the Greek prytanis and the Latin praetor. It is most probably a designation of the abstract ‘leader, master’, as well as for a particular rank title. If we judge by the Etruscan example, it has been delegated control and executive functions, sacred and civil; but if we judge by the examples of the Roman praetor and the Bithynian name title *Prousias, it has been delegated supreme executive functions and even executive power, evolved into a monarchic one3. 1.3. There is another term by which the Phrygian ruler’s institution was probably named – the term вблЮн or вбллЮн4. The lexeme was evidenced by Aeschylus as a Phrygian word for king [Aesch., * Stefan Yordanov – PhD, Associate Professor, Faculty of History, St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria; @ [email protected] 1 As enumerated by Bayun, L. S., and Orel, V. E. 1988, p. 166. 2 See about it in general, with lit.: Lubotsky, A. 1988, p. 23. 3 See more, with lit.: Nemirovskiy, A. I. 1983, p. 102, pp. 121–122. 4 See on this lexeme the detailed analysis of Kaczyńska, E. 2011, pp. 59–62, containing an enume ration of all the sources that evidence it. 249 Списание Епохи / The Journal Epohi [Epochs] Том / Volume XXVIII (2020). Книжка / Issue 2 Pers. 657]; Sophocles tells us that the shepherds exclaimed: tщ вблЮн [Sext. Empir. 672, 26], and, according to the Etymologicum Magnum, ВЬлйн in Thrace designated Dionysus5. The lexeme, which has received controversial interpretations, belongs to the relatively numerous lexical family in the Thracian language – the family of the names ending in -en-. The Phrygian bal(l)ēn (king) is explained by V. P. Neroznak through the Thracian gloss ВЬлйн.6 It is necessary to ask how reasonable his proposition is that these data present the lexeme as a Thracian or a Phrygian derivative of the same Indo-European root from which the Slavic lexeme boliy (great) originates. This proposition explains the word вбл(л)çн as meaning great, which in principle can be an epithet categorizing a god. In that case, Âбл(л)çн would be a substantivized adjective, and in the sources the categorization of both God and ruler’s institution is recorded as great7. Consequently, the homophony of that word with the name of Baal, which Wojciech Sowa points out as explanatory for the origin of the lexeme bal(l)ēn [Sowa, W. 2007, pp. 163–164], is nevertheless accidental. As for the naming of a supreme office by means of its categorisation, the case is similar to that of, for example, the Philistine lexeme serēn– a lexeme from the same suffix family8. What matters in that case is that the lexeme designates namely Dionysus, and along with this it was translated by ancient authors as king. According to the data of the ancient mytho-epic tradition in Phrygia, Dionysos is present in ‘regal’ plots. Dionysos is the god who, in the narration of Pseudo- Plutarch (X, ‘Marsyas’), turned the Midas’ ‘golden well’ into a high-water spring9. The information of Pseudo-Plutarch on the River Marsyas, this ‘Aztec’ plot in ancient mythology – Apollo flayed the skin of the vanquished Marsyas just like war prisoners were killed in an Aztec gladiatorial sacrifice during the Festival of Xipe Totec, with their skin flayed and worn for twenty days by Aztec priests or chosen youngmen10 – also contains an aition, explaining the name of the Berekinthos Mountain and that it was called after the man who became the Mother of Gods’ first priest11. It is again a narration of Pseudo- Plutarch about the River Sagaris where the mythical hero Ballenaeus was one of the main characters to whose honor a feast of the same name was established. This information was confirmed in a comment by Eustathius and in some scholia to Aeschylus’ work Persae12. 5 See on this title as well: Vassileva, M. 1990: pp. 98–99. The title isn’t mentioned in the Old Phry- gian inscriptions, but Maya Vassileva associates it with the name Baki = Dionysus from these inscriptions, juxtaposing the invocations to Sabas and ВЬлйн. 6 The lexeme bal(l)ēn (king) isn’t determined in the records as a Phrygian one only, but in one case as a gloss from Thurii. See the references in Neroznak, V. P. 1978, pp. 138–139, s.v. For that reason, V. P. Neroznak doubts if the word was Phrygian or Siculian, but, however, he considers it as sharing the same root with the Thracian gloss ВЬлйн (ô{н Äйьнõσпн Čñaêåò: Etym. Magnum). Therefore, the Thracians regarded Dionysus as “king”? Cf. the use of Dнбî as a categorisation of the gods. 7 Elwira Kaczyńska offers another etymology. She presents the lexeme as a derivative of the Indo- European root *wal- / wald(h), thus belonging to the same family together with the Gothic valdan (to rule), the Old Slavic vlad, vlasti (rule), etc. See Kaczyńska, E. 2011, pp. 59–62. 8 Gonzalo Rubio put the Phrygian ballēn in the suffix family of the Philistine title serēn and the Lydian words essēn (king) and palēn (chief). See Rubio, G. 2004, p. 7102. Cf. also: Yordanov, S. 2016, pp. 32–33. As early as in antiquity, ancient lexicographers paid attention to this suffix family, particularly Herodianus. See his information quoted in Kaczyńska, E. 2011, p. 61 (8, 8a). 9 Plut., Peri potamon..., X, 1 (Müller, K. 1861: p. 649); Torshilov, D. O. 1999, pp. 338–339 (the original text in Ancient Greek), p. 340 (the translation of D. О. Тоrshilov). 10 See in brief on Aztec practice: Neumann, F. J. 1976, pp. 254–255. Here we can make another ex tremely distant cross-temporal and cross-cultural comparison between the Balkans in antiquity and the Aztec world – similar to Hristo Danov’s comparison between the Thracian custom to lament over a new born child, because of the hardships he/she was about to face during his/her lifespan, according to Herodotus’ evidence (V, 4) – and the analogous custom among the Aztecs [see Danov, H. 1969, p. 207]. 11 Plut., Peri potamon..., X, 4 [Müller, K. 1861, S. pp. 649–650]; Torshilov, D. O. 1999, p. 339 (the original text in Ancient Greek), p. 340 (the translation of D. О. Тоrshilov). 12 Plut., Peri potamon..., XII, 3, 4 (Müller, K. 1861: p. 651); Torshilov, D. O. 1999, p. 344 (the original text in Ancient Greek), pp. 345–346 (the translation of D. О. Тоrshilov). See also: Eust. ad Od. II, p. 188; Schol. ad Aesch. 250 Списание Епохи / The Journal Epohi [Epochs] Том / Volume XXVIII (2020). Книжка / Issue 2 If this lexeme was really used in Phrygia – there are no valid reasons to reject its use by the Phrygians – it would be unfounded to view it ‘in competition’ with the lexeme vanak for the role of monocratic ruler’s designation. The state of our knowledge on the Phrygian potestary-political system is rather a different one – we don’t know which was the exact term to designate the Phrygian ruler’s institution on the basis of its typology, unknown to us as well. 1.4. With so many names designating offices (at least two), three of which respectively are convenient to denote the ruler’s institution, we should pose the question of whether there were enough data to evidence those names categorising the Phrygian ruler. The known historical rulers of Phrygia are few. Possibly one or two of them bore the name Midas. The presence of such a name among the historical rulers’ names was taken out from the data of the ancient mytho-epic tradition. However, in this tradition, Midas was presented as a ruler through the terms for designation of the ruler’s institution belonging to the Classical and Hellenistic epochs, and to Roman times respectively, mostly through the term basileus.